LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part III: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/business3.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part III: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Part II of this article discussed how individuals historically incorporated their businesses in the hopes of avoiding personal liability, but then often became dissatisfied with the so-called “double taxation” thereby resulting. This, among other motivations, brought the S-corporation and then, the limited liability company (LLC), into being. As a New York entertainment lawyer practicing in this day and age, I most often see limited liability companies (LLC’s) as opposed to other forms of entities used in film, music, television, publishing, and Internet businesses. However one cannot understand and appreciate the advantages typically provided by the limited liability company (LLC) unless superimposed as bas-relief upon the entity’s historical context – which gives further meaning to the LLC across all sectors and industries including entertainment and media.

Society clearly benefits from encouraging people to start businesses - and take some commercial risks without an attendant risk of personal ruin. Yet otherwise well-intentioned and well-motivated people were either quitting businesses or exposing themselves to personal liability - in both instances due to their aversion to the so-called “double layer of taxation” engendered by the C-corp. Additionally, the “double” taxation of the C-corp was creating a disincentive for new people to go into business - particularly those who were risk-averse. There had to be a better way.

That better way, at the time, was the S-corp, which came into existence a number of years ago principally for the above types of reasons and rationales. It was named after a “Subchapter-S” in the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, and was regularly recognized by the IRS and state tax authorities alike. One of the familiar tasks for an entertainment lawyer became the act of ensuring that clients timely made their appropriate S-corp elections (see below) with appropriate governmental authorities – hardly the romantic notion one would have of what it is like to interact with talent and go to celebrity premieres..

Akin to the C-corp in most other respects, the S-corp only mandated a single layer of taxation, as opposed to the C-corp’s double layer of taxation. But there were also a few catches.

One had to make a formal written “election” (or in some cases, “elections”) to qualify as an S-corp. If one didn’t do so in time by a strict deadline, one would lose S-corp status and be “doubly” taxed like a C-corp instead. As most entertainment lawyers can attest, this kind of eventuality could actually snuff out a fledgling entertainment or media start-up business in its first years of existence, already engaging in risky and speculative business activity as is often the case in media and entertainment.

There were other restrictions on S-corps, too, such as a limit on the number of shareholders, a limit on foreign ownership, and a limit on corporate parent-subsidiary ownership. Some of these restrictions have been loosened - and in some cases eliminated - in recent years; so one should not rule out the S-corp without first updating its tax code requirements with one’s lawyer – entertainment lawyer or otherwise – as well as one’s tax accountant. The historical restrictions of the S-corp put business owners in a “Catch-22” situation - they clearly wanted a single layer of taxation, but in the context of an entity that wasn’t so restricted. The newer solution: scrap the idea of a corporation at all, and instead form a limited liability company, or LLC.

The limited liability company (LLC) is akin to the S-corp but without most of the attendant historical restrictions. Yes, there were a certain number of restrictions on the LLC, too, when it first appeared on the scene - most of which were subsequently lifted by either the IRS or state legislatures, or both. Again, S-corp restrictions have also been lifted in recent years, making the S-corp and limited liability company (LLC) look more similar to each other as time goes on.

But even as of this writing, the limited liability company (LLC) is usually considered the most advantageous entity from a tax perspective of all 3 most commonly available forms, for the small business owner to create. As a media and entertainment lawyer, the LLC is the entity which I am most often asked to create. The LLC is also considered the most flexible of all 3 entities. What does “flexible” mean? Well, it is considered easier to adapt the LLC to later-occurring additional equity-holders in one’s business, for example, which is another familiar task for an entertainment lawyer in the context of artistic co-ventures - and the word “easier” in this context translates to “less legal fees”. The LLC is in most cases an entity which is easier to manage and administrate.

There are some disadvantages to the limited liability company (LLC), too. The LLC can take more time to finalize, and in some cases can be more expensive to form and/or file with the government - as compared to an S-corp. Some states historically prohibited 1-person LLC’s. Some states still have an underdeveloped body of judicial case law on the LLC, since the entity is still quite new in many states - so the treatment of the LLC under the law may be less certain than the treatment of a corporation. We in New York have an odd restriction, too, as a result of the powerful newspaper and media lobby galvanized during the legislation’s enactment which as a media and entertainment lawyer I suppose that I should not begrudge. This restriction may be present in another state or two as well in analogous form. The restriction is this: if one elects to form a New York LLC, one must publish its existence in periodicals for a number of weeks, before being accorded the legal privilege of initiating a litigation - as a plaintiff - in the LLC’s name in the New York courts. Publication of an LLC’s naissance in Manhattan is expensive - the publication of a limited liability company in periodicals of the creation of a proposed Manhattan LLC can range between $1,000 and $3,000 (the figures can vary and are smaller in other parts of New York State apart from Manhattan).

Even so, the limited liability company (LLC) is considered the trend-setting entity of those “in the know”, across the country. As an entertainment lawyer in New York, I have noticed that hipster Californians gravitate to LLC’s just as much as hipster New Yorkers seem to do. And part from hype, assuming that one can afford to form an LLC, and assuming that one can live with whatever restrictions apply to the LLC in one’s jurisdiction, it may in fact be the entity of choice, and an improvement over the older S-corp and C-corp structures.

A limited liability company (LLC), though frequently mistaken for a corporation, is technically not considered a corporation – rather, it is an unincorporated entity under the tax code, more like a partnership than anything else, but one that (like the S-corp and C-corp), if properly formed and maintained, should provide its members with insulation against personal liability.

If one doesn’t incorporate or form a limited liability company (LLC), the business will likely be what is known as either a sole proprietorship (if a 1-person company), or a general partnership, de facto or otherwise, (if comprised of 2 or more persons). Any entertainment lawyer or other lawyer will opine that this could result in unlimited personal liability for the entity’s owner or owners. Again, that means that an owner’s personal assets can be at risk to satisfy the obligations and debts of the business. Any entertainment lawyer or other lawyer will opine that personal liability is not a risk worth taking. In addition, using a corporate entity or limited liability company (LLC) – particularly an LLC in this day and age - could add a good deal of “cachet” or credibility to one’s business endeavors, in the eyes of other persons and companies with whom the business has contact.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment lawyer includes incorporations and the formation of limited liability companies (LLC’s). If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

Business Structures - Part III

Title Metatag:

LLC, entertainment lawyer, corporation, limited liability company

Meta Description:

LLC,entertainment attorney,corporation,limited liability company,New York,entertainment lawyer,record label, start-up

Keywords:

business entities,corporation,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,incorporation,legal services,limited liability company,limited liability companies,LLC,LLC’s,New York lawyer,

start-up business, entertainment lawyer, entertainment attorney, business structures, LLC, corporation, limited liability company, LLC, corporation, limited liability company, New York, entertainment lawyer, record label, start up, business entities, corporation, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, incorporation, legal services,

limited liability company, limited liability companies, LLC, LLCs, New York lawyer, start up business

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/business3.htm

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org/

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.
© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Part I of this article discussed the distinction between hiring “independent contractors” versus “employees”, and some of the consequences thereby resulting. To give the hypothetical some real-life relevance to an entertainment lawyer like myself, how could, for example, a recording studio or a film production characterize its workers as the former (independent contractors), rather than the latter (employees)? If the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or applicable Department of Labor (DOL) challenges the characterization of the workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees, is there anything that the film production or recording studio could have done in retrospect to seek to prevent or withstand the challenge – aside from calling its entertainment lawyer at the point of hire and asking the entertainment lawyer, that is?

A signed written agreement between the music or film studio and each worker, which among other things characterized each of them as an “independent contractor”, prepared by the entertainment lawyer, might have been helpful. But do not believe for a minute that agencies like the DOL and the IRS will view that self-serving contractual “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization as fully-dispositive, even when drafted by the entertainment lawyer. These agencies decidedly will not. Rather, the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the worker’s services must give additional support to the contractual characterization of an independent contractor as opposed to an employee. Moreover, things change. The facts and circumstances of work in the latter year may differ from what the entertainment lawyer’s drafting predicted them to be in the former year’s signed contract. See, e.g.:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

In other words, the hiring company in the entertainment field should, at minimum, require all its independent contractor hires to sign independent contractor agreements prepared by the company’s entertainment lawyer, that among other things expressly disclaim an employee-employer relationship. But the smart company also further monitors the factual circumstances of that work relationship post-signature, to make sure that those facts continually support the contract and the “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization. Most independent contractor relationships themselves, as well as other forms of relationships, change over time and do not remain static. The entertainment lawyer can amend the pre-existing signed contract at the client’s further request.

This article will not rehash all factors in the past IRS “checklists” here, particularly because the governmental definition of independent contractor vs. employee continues to evolve and may have changed by the time you read this article. The hiring party should update itself on the IRS and DOL “independent contractor vs. employee” definitions anyway: (1) so to be sure to consider factors applicable to its own state and jurisdiction, and (2) so as to work off of the most updated definition Obviously it is wise to consult with one’s entertainment lawyer, accountant, and payroll company – particularly the latter two - before one rolls out an entertainment company payroll plan for independent contractors, employees or otherwise. Indeed, prospective advice should be obtained before the hiring party even make the hires. But below are some of the checklist factors which as an entertainment lawyer representing the hiring party I have found to have been given some significant weight in the context of past DOL actions. Query whether or not the hiring party will be able to “flip” any of them to its own favor and advantage, if the hiring party is ever challenged on its own characterizations of workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees:

A. Nature Of Services.

The entertainment lawyer first inquires of the hiring party, “What exact services or types of services does the claimed independent contractor worker perform?” If the hiring party is held to exercise or reserve the right to exercise sufficient supervision, direction, and control over the worker’s services, an “employer-employee” relationship may be established, even if such relationship was never intended by the hiring party thinking he or she was instead hiring an independent contractor rather than an employee. To this extent, a written job description in the agreement drafted by the entertainment lawyer suggesting that the worker toils independently, may support the company’s assertion of an “independent contractor” vs. an employee-employer relationship. But the written job description must be an accurate reflection of the facts, and must stay accurate going forward in time which is even more difficult. In any event the written job description scribed by the business owner’s entertainment lawyer, is not dispositive on “independent contractor vs. employee” question. Moreover, most media and entertainment hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish supervision, direction, and control over even its independent contractor hires, as a practical matter - much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing. Therefore, this “nature of services” item is a difficult checklist factor for the hiring party to “flip” to its own advantage in favor of an independent contractor adjudication as opposed to employee determination.

B. In Business For Himself/Herself.

The entertainment lawyer next asks, if this worker that the hiring party wishes to characterize as an independent contractor as opposed to employee, in business for himself or herself. For example, does this worker run his or her own business or corporation, or work through a “loan-out” entity? Does the worker have an independent consulting business? Does the worker advertise any business, or have the trappings or indicia of any self-standing business? If the worker is in business for himself or herself – and particularly if the worker can be documented by the hiring party’s entertainment lawyer to have been such, well-prior to the making of the hire in question – then that would be a strong suggestion that the worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee. In fact, the party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those contractors that are already separately incorporated or functioning through a limited liability company, which the entertainment lawyer can normally confirm on-paper through the use of public-record databases. This “business for himself/herself” item is therefore a factor that can be flipped to the hiring party’s advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination over an employee characterization, if set-up carefully in advance, and a step in which it may be critical to involve the entertainment lawyer.

C. Invoicing Or Billing For Services.

Asks the entertainment lawyer to the hiring party, “Does the claimed independent contractor worker submit a bill or invoice for services?”. Most employees don’t. Most independent contractors do – or, should. Again, this is a factor that the hiring party can flip to its advantage in favor of an independent contractor characterization as opposed to an employee determination, if assessed and set-up carefully in advance, and a step with which the entertainment lawyer can help by assisting the documentation process. The party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those claimed independent contractors that furnish or are willing to furnish periodic invoices. An employee would be unlikely to do so, and unlikely to be asked to do so. This “invoicing” factor will likely not be dispositive by itself, but could be helpful to the hiring party to support an independent contractor determination over an employee ruling.

D. Where, When And How Long.

The entertainment lawyer then asks the hiring party, “Is this worker claimed to be an independent contractor rater than an employee, told where to work each day? Or, when to work each day? Or, how long or how many hours to work each day?” The entertainment lawyer observes that a worker toiling off-premises is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. A worker on his or her own schedule is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. And, a worker who chooses his or her daily hour expenditure is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

E. Review Of Work.

“Regarding the worker sought to be classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee”, asks the entertainment lawyer, “is this worker’s effort subject to review by anyone – particularly annual reviews? Is the worker’s effort reviewed as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’”? The more discretion of review that the company exercises, the more likely that this worker will be characterized as an “employee” rather than an independent contractor. One presumption would be that the remedy for a bad independent contractor would be simply to terminate rather than to review, which the hiring party might do through his or her counsel, or just on his or her own. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.
.
F. Refusal Of Work Assignments.

This worker that the hiring party calls an independent contractor rather than an employee – the entertainment lawyer muses - can this worker refuse work assignments? Does this worker in fact refuse any work assignments? If so, what happens as a result? Though not an absolute, a worker entitled to refuse assignments is at least somewhat more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.
.
G. Tools And Office Space.

As for this worker that the hiring party claims to be an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, the entertainment lawyer inquires - what equipment or other tools or objects does this worker supply or bring to the job site by himself or herself, if any? Who provides the office space, if any? The more equipment and tools that the worker brings to the work site, the more likely it is that the worker will be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than as an employee. If, on the other hand, the company provides an office, tools and equipment, the relationship looks more like an employee-employer employment relationship. In this day and age of laptop and telecommuting, we will more frequently see hiring parties try to flip this variable to their advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination as opposed to an employee determination. And this factor will not be ignored by the governmental authorities adjudicating the issue, or entertainment lawyers drafting the prospective agreements, either.

Again, please do not rely upon the excerpted list of “independent contractor vs. employee” factors above - it is only illustrative in the context of media and entertainment company hiring patterns in the past - and different tribunals may adjudicate different results. Any determination that a hiring party in the entertainment field makes about a worker’s status should be done only upon review with one’s own entertainment lawyer, one’s tax accountant, and one’s payroll company – particularly the latter two. The most important thing to remember is that the rule of “ipse dixit” does not apply to the “independent contractor vs. employee” question. In other words, just because the hiring party calls someone an “independent contractor” as opposed to an employee, does not make them so! (“Ipse dixit” is Latin for “he himself said so”).

There are structural modifications that the hiring party can make to the hiring relationship, as well as entertainment lawyer-drafted text, that will increase its chances of successfully claiming the worker to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. But there are seldom any absolutes in this regard. Finally, keep in mind that there is a real “Catch 22” to the “independent contractor v. employee” characterization. The entertainment lawyer will advise the hiring party that the hiring party must truly be willing to part with a substantial amount of supervision, direction, and control over a worker - and must in fact do so - in exchange for the privilege of paying them like an independent contractor rather than an employee. There is only a very limited extent to which a hiring party may be able to contract around this problem.

Click the “Articles” button at:
http://www.tormey.org/art.htm
to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment attorney includes state and federal employment law matters relating to independent contractors and employees and other human resource matters as they arise in the fields of music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and other media and industries. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org/

Page:
Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II

Title Metatag:
independent contractor,entertainment lawyer,employee

Meta Description:
entertainment attorney,employee,entertainment lawyer,independent contractor,labor,withholding,recording studio,New York

Keywords:
compensation,contracts,corporations,employees,employment,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,independent contractors,labor,law firm,legal services,New York lawyer,union agreements,withholdings

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, independent contractors, employees, independent contractor, entertainment lawyer, employee, entertainment attorney, employee, entertainment lawyer, independent contractor, labor, withholding, recording studio, New York, compensation, contracts, corporations, employees, employment, independent contractors, labor, law firm, legal services, New York lawyer, union agreements, withholdings

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm